All you do is resort to name-calling when you lose a point, and think that it somehow masks your utter ignorance on financial issues. Grow up.

"Look up something on Google?" Look up any basic financial accounting book for the definition of Gross Margin, buddy. Better yet, go to the SEC website - which is for people like you, who think they know, but don't - and they have every definition you'd want. This is so basic that if this is how "how you use business financials every day," I pity your business (or the people you advise).

"Depreciation is a below-the-line cost"?! What does that even mean? Below what line? Do you even know where that number appears in financial disclosure? Do you even know what the key components of CGS are?

Sorry, pal, but if you don't even know what a 'below the line cost' is, then you have no business discussing the topic at all. That is a very, very fundamental term used in even the simplest of businesses.

As I said, I've run businesses from small businesses to divisions of multibillion dollar companies. I had full financial responsibility for most of them and I know how to do and interpret the finances. I'm most certainly not interested in the opinion of someone who doesn't even have a clue what he's talking about - and readily admits it.

Come back after you educate yourself enough that you understand at least the basic principles of business finances.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

By the way, this is Google's response to a statement Steve Jobs made questioning activation numbers:
"The Android activations numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market, since we only include devices that have Google services," the spokesperson said."

Yes, but notice that they didn't respond to the most likely source of error.

There is a fairly wide-spread belief that Google counts multiple activations for each phone. For example:
- New activation every time someone transfers the phone to a new number
- New activation every time someone upgrades the Android version on the phone
- New activation every time someone replaces the SIM on the phone (such as, for example, traveling overseas and buying a local service)
- New activation when the phone locks up and needs a hard reset

Google has never denied that those are 'new activations'. And since Google has never announced how many Google phones have been sold, their numbers are very suspect.

(Yes, I know the argument that Google doesn't sell phones so they can't tell us the number sold, but that's bogus. The Android license agreement probably includes something that requires the hardware vendor to tell Google how many licenses they are using per quarter - and if it doesn't, it easily could).

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

No he's not, and neither are the people who are getting all giddy over this tablet, simply because of the cheap price.

It's plain common sense, people who are buying this because it's cheap will also be cheap when it comes to buying content.

What? Why? For many folks that are going to buy this $199 is beneath the radar. I would guess that most Kindle owners are currently reasonably affluent for their age group. The same can be said for ipad and nook color owners.

I'll likely buy one if netflix can be offered on it. I'm already a prime member but this tablet will be for watching stuff and the occasional ebook IF it reads epub.

If it's JUST amazon products and ecosystem, even though I do spend hundreds if not thousands on Amazon a year, I'll get the Nook Color 2 and watch amazon video via flash.

I think that a 5" iPod would be better addition to Apple's lineup than a 7" iPad. For content consumption and portability I think that would be a very good combo. You just can't share that quite as well as a 7" device.

The Nook Color when showing movies isn't that much smaller than my iPad showing movies.

Yes, but notice that they didn't respond to the most likely source of error.

There is a fairly wide-spread belief that Google counts multiple activations for each phone. For example:
- New activation every time someone transfers the phone to a new number
- New activation every time someone upgrades the Android version on the phone
- New activation every time someone replaces the SIM on the phone (such as, for example, traveling overseas and buying a local service)
- New activation when the phone locks up and needs a hard reset

Google has never denied that those are 'new activations'. And since Google has never announced how many Google phones have been sold, their numbers are very suspect.

(Yes, I know the argument that Google doesn't sell phones so they can't tell us the number sold, but that's bogus. The Android license agreement probably includes something that requires the hardware vendor to tell Google how many licenses they are using per quarter - and if it doesn't, it easily could).

Well you can toss out the second item on your list since Google clearly stated that upgrades aren't counted as activations. Four could also be be dismissed as that's simply a local event that requires no interaction with a carrier, website or Google themselves. As for the other possibilities, you're correct they've never specifically said those situations aren't counted.

For the sake of argument, how often do you think a smartphone user changes his/her phone number or replaces the SIM card? Let's be generous and say that fully a quarter of all Android owners have changed their phone number or replaced their SIM card since buying their current phone. With 600K+ activations per day claimed, that would still leave leave well over 13 million new Android devices in consumer's hands each month at the current rate assuming that every remaining possibility you noted is true.

I don't know why Google's activation numbers are of such concern to iOS users anyway. Apple's pretty darn successful with their mobile products and Android isn't any real threat to them. I guess it's about bragging rights?

Maybe they can sell at a loss and make it up with content. But I'll bet there are plenty out there who will buy this to play back media from other sources (bought or pirated) and never spend a cent on content from Amazon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drobforever

It'd be like Netflix, only cheaper...

People think the NF streaming selection is bad? Amazon has only a fraction of the titles and last I heard nothing released in the last two years. Sure they have plenty of downloadable/streamable video titles available, but all the good ones are buy or rent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bettieblue

NOT need any kind of PC to get going...unlike the iPad.

With iOS5, the iPad no longer will need a PC to set up, it was announced months ago.

Fire has a bigger screen than touch, but does it have any other advantages?

If Apple were to just take the touch and grow the screen to seven inches, how much cost would that add? What's the difference in cost between 3.5 and 7?

If people really get excited about a device that size and in that price range, I don't see any reason why they couldn't make a device that beats the fire for a similar price. Heck, once the iPad 2 came out what were they selling the first model for? Seems like if there really is competition on the low end, if Apple wanted to compete there (and maybe they don't) when the iPad 3 ships they could just keep selling the old model as the budget option.

So what does make up the difference in price between touch and basic iPad? How much is screen size and how much is A5/A4, amount of memory, and other tech specs?

Amazon doesn't count those expenses specifically in COGS (not sure what your point was there), nor do they disclose profit margins on eBooks. I'd be interested in seeing one of those many reports about 3-5% profits, the only thing I found was a WSJ analyst guessing in 2009.

Amazing that the costs of electronic distribution would be as high as physical distribution, makes me wonder why they bother. Amazon S3 pricing must be a sham too, according to them it would cost less than a penny to store and transfer out a 20MB file. Guess they didn't think out that model either.

Yes, I do have a 7" tablet in my collection. The problem with mine and the Archos isn't necessarily the screen size, but the nature of the screen itself: resistive screens like the one on the Archos are annoying as hell compared to the more fluid experience of a capacitive screen. The Kindle Fire has a capacitive screen, so it's going to be hard to compare it to just about any other 7" on the market.

So with interactions as smooth as higher-end tablets, the differences come down to screen size alone. It may not be your preference, and perhaps it's not for everyone, but there are times when I find the iPad2 just a bit large for simply reading a book or checking my mail.

Whether this 7" form factor will succeed depends on the subjective opinions of a great many more people than just you and me. But as one of the very few capacitive screens in that size, and the only one with a capacitive screen in that price range, it offers a new choice that just might have a niche.

I'm not sure if the Fire has a capacitive screen or not. I'm keep reading that the touch models are using an IR method, where your finger intercepts beams to give the position. I'd like to know more. One thing I read is that it's two finger touch. But I haven't read everything that's been written, so I could be wrong about the Fire.

It may also be worth nothing that in the methodologies explanation at NetMarketShare, where much of that "utlization" data was originally reported, they explain that they count all visits from a single IP to a single web site throughout the day as just one visit. So for example if you log into this forum a dozen times a day, it only gets counted once, but if you wander across the web aimlessly visiting site after site until you eventually find what you're looking for your apparent usage goes up, even as your actual usage is discounted.

There's also the role if apps vs browsers, since both NetMarketShare and StatCounter appear to count only browser hits, and most folks I know tend to use dedicated apps for the sites they visit most often.

Of course then that leads us to the question: why would Android users' Internet usage patterns in terms of revisiting sites and apps vs browers differ so much from iOS users? That was the key question in the earlier thread that no one could answer.

Still, given how radically that one report on "utlization" differs from nearly all other data, clearly a deep rethink on such methods is in order.

It doesn't differ that much from all other reports. Nielson is just as far off in the other direction, if anything. But NMS could be better measuring usage patterns than Nielson. Who is to say that that is better?

... I don't know why Google's activation numbers are of such concern to iOS users anyway. Apple's pretty darn successful with their mobile products and Android isn't any real threat to them. I guess it's about bragging rights? ...

No, it's about hating dishonesty. If the numbers were legit, they'd be open about how they are compiled. The fact that, at this point in time, no one outside of Google really has any idea exactly what is included in the activation numbers means they don't want us to know how they "count" them. For all anyone knows, they just make them up. Maybe not, but shrouding in secrecy exactly how an "activation" is defined and what's included in the numbers is a pretty sure sign that the numbers are not honest.

Yes, I know you'll argue that they are honest, maybe that they "have no reason to lie", but the fact remains that their silence on the matter, when it's a pretty common point of discussion (i.e., Google can't claim they had no idea there was any controversy) indicates that they do have something to hide.

So, the question remains, exactly what is it about those activation numbers they don't want us to know?

And even if that were the case, for a media distributor like Amazon would that necessarily mean a net loss?

The metaphor of razors was brought up here before, apparently missed.

Exactly. Why the rush to condemn Amazon as committing some sort of blatant stupidity in the absence of any actual data?

It seems at this point you and I are in complete agreement: everyone here saying this is necessarily stupid is being a bit premature. The presumption that one of the world's greatest success stories can't do simple arithmetic says more about the person making the suggestion than it does about Amazon.

You can go to almost any business site and find an article questioning it.

Look, I'm wondering if this concept will work. It may, and it may not. But, it does seem to be touchy. It wouldn't be the first time that companies have tried this idea and failed.

You know how it is. When working this up, and doing the analysis, certain assumptions must be made, and plugged in. If they are correct, then everyone is happy. But if they were wrong, then there's a problem. Amazon supposedly broke even on Kindle sales, and made a small profit on book sales. But Kindle buyers are big readers, and so might not fit this buying profile. What are the assumptions Amazon is making? We see from the examples I gave as a reply to another post, that several major companies made assumptions after research that were totally wrong.

I'm finding it difficult to get a handle on exactly how much, and what, an individual needs to buy, and over what time period for Amazon to make a reliable profit from this. My estimates seem high to some people, but they may not be that far off. The problem Amazon has is that if they are losing a fair amount on each sale, and if there are a substantial portion of buyers who just don't buy nearly as much as needed, then what's the guarantee that the loss will be made up by those who do buy? Also, if someone buys a certain amount of stuff from them before buying the Fire, and continues buying the same amount of stuff, there is no net gain from that Fire sale. So if I bought a Fire and continued buying the same number of books a month as I do now for my iPad from them, they will take a loss from that sale.

Then, there's the business of Prime. That's a nice thing for some people. But it can also be a loss for Amazon, depending on what, and how much you buy. Even so, how many Fire owners will subscribe after the first free month? I've been wondering how they can figure this surely, and I don't think they can. As I've said before, I think this is an experiment on their part. While a company must project confidence, they could be wondering about the same things I'm wondering about.

Every company makes mistakes. We still don't know how many Kindles they sell, and that's just plain strange, considering how well they say they're doing. I think this will sell at least fairly well, and perhaps better than that. I'm just not sure if they will make a profit.

It's the difference between having the thing that arrives at your home be a tablet or a brick.

If this weren't imporant, why would the at-long-last-independence-from-the-computer be a featured cornerstone of iOS 5?

This "new feature" has been the way things just work on Android for years.

You're missing my point. It's not whether it's easily available, but that it can be done. At any rate, the point is moot after people install the 5 upgrade, everyone will be able to do it, and that's just in a bit over two weeks from now. And it's still far better to have to option of syncing locally than to not have that ability.

I'm not saying, and I've never said that doing this wirelessly is a bad thing. I've been saying, and am still saying that doing it on your computer isn't a bad thing either. It's also much faster, and safer.

Google always rushes things to market. That doesn't make it better. I'm happy that Apple will have this choice, and I'm pretty sure it was their intention all along. But Apple doesn't rush. They take their time. They were probably working on this from the beginning.

Sorry, pal, but if you don't even know what a 'below the line cost' is, then you have no business discussing the topic at all. That is a very, very fundamental term used in even the simplest of businesses.

As I said, I've run businesses from small businesses to divisions of multibillion dollar companies. I had full financial responsibility for most of them and I know how to do and interpret the finances. I'm most certainly not interested in the opinion of someone who doesn't even have a clue what he's talking about - and readily admits it.

Come back after you educate yourself enough that you understand at least the basic principles of business finances.

"Run businesses"? "Multibillion dollar companies?" LOL. For all I know - and care - you could be a homeless bum talking big on the internet. What you claim to do in some anonymous public forum is utterly irrelevant.

Moreover, the fact that you may be doing so or have done so doesn't mean diddly-squat. Lehman Bothers had far smarter people than you.... for instance.... so what?

You use insults as a substitute for honest argument. It's like you've got tourette's syndrome or something. (That's your wont, although I have to tell you that I feel badly for the people around you). Get a grip, pal.

"Below the line"? What a stupid, meaningless cliche. Deflect an important question (no, not the one about "below the line" which wasn't really a question) by resorting to ad hominems. You have no clue about something as basic as Cost of Goods Sold and have the temerity to tell others to educate themselves!

I am utterly uninterested in the ramblings of an illiterate. No make that an arrogant illiterate. Come back after you lose your arrogance. You might actually learn something.

Ok, guys, criticize the post, and say whatever you want about it. Call it any name you want to, but don't call the poster extreme names. Saying something like; "What, are you nuts?" is fine but don't say, that they're a nut. Know what I mean?

Ok, guys, criticize the post, and say whatever you want about it. Call it any name you want to, but don't call the poster extreme names. Saying something like; "What, are you nuts?" is fine but don't say, that they're a nut. Know what I mean?

Or note that their comment is nuts. Personal v. personalized attacks.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Well it may be wrong to your ears but it's is both true and accurate. Simply Google "Barnes and Noble overpriced" and tell me what you come up with.
Sorry - you may know Apple info as a moderator at AI but your retail knowledge is inaccurate.

Also I only made one statement. Perhaps I should have said "one of the most" overpriced retailers. But whatever- Amazon undercuts them as does Jand R for physical music and video items.

No, it's about hating dishonesty. If the numbers were legit, they'd be open about how they are compiled. The fact that, at this point in time, no one outside of Google really has any idea exactly what is included in the activation numbers means they don't want us to know how they "count" them. For all anyone knows, they just make them up. Maybe not, but shrouding in secrecy exactly how an "activation" is defined and what's included in the numbers is a pretty sure sign that the numbers are not honest.

Yes, I know you'll argue that they are honest, maybe that they "have no reason to lie", but the fact remains that their silence on the matter, when it's a pretty common point of discussion (i.e., Google can't claim they had no idea there was any controversy) indicates that they do have something to hide.

So, the question remains, exactly what is it about those activation numbers they don't want us to know?

I don't know anymore about activations than anyone else here. When you buy an Android, iPhone (or any other phone) it needs to be activated. Pretty straightforward, nothing confusing about that, right? Thus it's counted as an activation. Why do you and a few others try to read something sneaky or devious in there? How does Apple count activations? Probably the same way?

I'm not sure if the Fire has a capacitive screen or not. I'm keep reading that the touch models are using an IR method, where your finger intercepts beams to give the position. I'd like to know more. One thing I read is that it's two finger touch. But I haven't read everything that's been written, so I could be wrong about the Fire.

It's not hard to google. Everyone is reporting IPS, capacitive, gorilla glass. Even when they are talking about the IR touch. For example:

"Capacitive touch is what's used in most smartphones and tablets, including virtually all Android devices, the iPhone, iPad and newer BlackBerrys. It's also the technology embedded in Amazon's new $199 Kindle Fire, a multimedia tablet."

"Run businesses"? "Multibillion dollar companies?" LOL. For all I know - and care - you could be a homeless bum talking big on the internet. What you claim to do in some anonymous public forum is utterly irrelevant.

Moreover, the fact that you may be doing so or have done so doesn't mean diddly-squat. Lehman Bothers had far smarter people than you.... for instance.... so what?

You use insults as a substitute for honest argument. It's like you've got tourette's syndrome or something. (That's your wont, although I have to tell you that I feel badly for the people around you). Get a grip, pal.

"Below the line"? What a stupid, meaningless cliche. Deflect an important question (no, not the one about "below the line" which wasn't really a question) by resorting to ad hominems. You have no clue about something as basic as Cost of Goods Sold and have the temerity to tell others to educate themselves!

I am utterly uninterested in the ramblings of an illiterate. No make that an arrogant illiterate. Come back after you lose your arrogance. You might actually learn something.

The fact is that you don't know what 'below the line' means - and virtually anyone who has ever dealt with business finances uses the term. Therefore, it is clear that you don't have a clue about business finance.

But that was obvious from your inane posts earlier.

Oh, and btw, your claim that I don't know anything about COGS is just plain wrong. As was demonstrated earlier, it is YOU who don't understand the term.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

That's a plus, B&N is the most overpriced retailer out there and deserves to die. No tears here.

You know the margin on books really isn't that excessive right? You can't possibly expect a brick and mortar store to match the prices of Amazon. I'm not sure how far back you can remember but Amazon started out encouraging online ordering by discount pricing. Such a model doesn't work for retail spaces in expensive locations.

I don't know anymore about activations than anyone else here. When you buy an Android, iPhone (or any other phone) it needs to be activated. Pretty straightforward, nothing confusing about that, right? Thus it's counted as an activation. Why do you and a few others try to read something sneaky or devious in there? How does Apple count activations? Probably the same way?

The difference is that Apple is able to track unique devices. Every device has a serial number and that number is recorded when it is activated. When someone REactivates a device, Apple knows that it's not a new device.

Google refuses to explain how they track activations. So, it's not unreasonable to take them at their word. Every time a device is activated, they count it. But any given device could be activated multiple times (for all the reasons given above). So, since Google simply tells you how many activations occur, it is logical to believe that the number of UNIQUE phone activations is less than the total number of activations which Google reports.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

The infrared tech you mentioned is used in the lower-priced Kindle Touch (an interesting way to solve that problem; thanks for bringing it to my attention).

IR is typically used on large multi-touch screen (like 50") and often as a kit to add on to a large LCD or Plasma. Hard to get a 50" capacitance panel...

The problem with IR for multi-touch is shadows. Single touch easy. Two fingers easy. Keep going and you start worrying about obscuration depending on number and location of sensors. Especially if used in a table top format and folks start putting coffee mugs on it. Then you're like "Really? You thought that was a good place to put your mug?".

Good enough for pinch and zoom, pointing and simple gestures. So-so for multi-user collaboration surfaces.

For something like an eReader, single touch and small size it should work well unless there's some IR source that drowns out the signal.

Yeah, I bought one in part because I find my iPad to be too big to carry around with me everywhere. For what it does, the 7" form factor is superior, especially as an eReader. Of course, the downside is that it's a cheap and slow Android monstrosity. If Apple built a 7" iPad/iPod touch variant I know I'd buy one for sure. And I have no intention of upgrading to a new future version of the iPad unless it is smaller than the current screen size.

The difference is that Apple is able to track unique devices. Every device has a serial number and that number is recorded when it is activated. When someone REactivates a device, Apple knows that it's not a new device.

Google refuses to explain how they track activations. So, it's not unreasonable to take them at their word. Every time a device is activated, they count it. But any given device could be activated multiple times (for all the reasons given above). So, since Google simply tells you how many activations occur, it is logical to believe that the number of UNIQUE phone activations is less than the total number of activations which Google reports.

So when Apple was reporting activations they said they were counting individual UDID's? Does Apple count an activation when a new customer activates his freshly purchased second-hand iPhone? What if it's purchased new, returned and resold to a different customer? Is that another activation? Has Apple ever clearly stated how they count activation? Dunno, but perhaps you do?

FWIW since Android tablets without cellular service don't go thru activation, they may not be counted at all. Google said that only a subset of newly purchased Android devices actually get reported in the activation numbers, which could be explained by devices like tablets that wouldn't be "activated" for service. The actual number of Android devices (with Google services) in consumer hands could even be higher than their stated activation numbers.

[QUOTE=Gatorguy;1953780]So when Apple was reporting activations they said they were counting individual UDID's? Does Apple count an activation when a new customer activates his freshly purchased second-hand iPhone? What if it's purchased new, returned and resold to a different customer? Is that another activation? Has Apple ever clearly stated how they count activation? Dunno, but perhaps you do?/QUOTE]

Apple rarely talks about activation. Almost all of Apple's comments are about devices sold. And when they DO talk about activation, they almost always say "xxx NEW devices activated" so used ones wouldn't count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

FWIW since Android tablets without cellular service don't go thru activation, they may not be counted at all. Google said that only a subset of newly purchased Android devices actually get reported in the activation numbers, which could be explained by devices like tablets that wouldn't be "activated" for service. The actual number of Android devices (with Google services) in consumer hands could even be higher than their stated activation numbers.

Except that the number of non-cellular Android devices is insignificant.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13